Intermittent fasting, I don’t get it
Replies
-
You've seemed to have worked out why IF wouldn't work for *you*. I have a varying schedule, so IF would make things simpler for me. On days I have meetings, I'm rarely home much later than 7, so the 8pm cut-off would be fine. Also, I tend to work out in the early evenings, so eating beforehand wouldn't be an issue.
I don't do well with most diets, so for me an eating plan that's just a window of time where I consume all of my calories suits me very well.
I wasn't at all suggesting it wouldn't be a good approach for you, just asking why it seems to be the default for "I struggle with snacking at night" when one can just decide not to snack at night without eating in a window. The assumption often seems to be that people not eating within a window eat constantly when they are awake, and of course that's not true.
Just eliminating snacking at night isn't enough. I don't tend to eat huge amounts at one sitting, so getting rid of one meal PLUS snacking at night is bound to have more of an effect. And there does seem to be some credibility to the fasting increasing metabolism, but even if it is just reducing over-all caloric consumption, that would be useful.
I don't think there's evidence supporting the metabolism increasing, and it doesn't make sense.
The 2 meals vs. more I get. I prefer 3 on average (I have 2 if I plan a big dinner), since it's much easier for me to meet my personal fiber, protein, and veg goals in 3 (my personal view is that it's important to have 10+ servings of veg a day and I have them at all meals, and I go for about 90 g of protein and don't want to rely on meat at all meals). However, like I said, that's me -- I do think 2 meals can make it easier for some people and is worth a try. Just don't assume everyone else is eating constantly or constantly hungry or what not.
For me the "window" thing seems less important than a planned schedule, whatever it is, since I could eat a crazy amount in 8 hours if I ate mindlessly within my window.5 -
amusedmonkey wrote: »There's a lot of disdain or at least gentle dismissal for IF in this thread, so allow me to present an alternative viewpoint, as a person who has been doing 16:8 for five months, after trying various other diet efforts over the years that weren't nearly as effective (i.e. they "failed", whereas this effort has been extremely successful and is still going as strong today as the day I started it).
Yes, IF is not "magic". It's just another Way Of Eating. There are many of those.
Yes, you still need a calorie quota. I've been using the MFP-supplied calorie quota and pairing that with an IF structure. There are people who say you can just eat what you want on IF, but that doesn't make sense. Obviously, you will lose weight in accordance with your calorie deficit, no matter how and when you choose to eat.
Yes, the impact on insulin, diabetes, etc, can be debated, and some of the rampant online discussion about that stuff seems to have more of a "pop science" hype flavor than real medical value.
So ... then why IF?
1. First and foremost...
That you so much for this! I had planned to try this way of eating several months ago, but life got in the way (lots of travel to visit my father who was very ill). Am ready to try again and your explanation of the process has helped cement it for me. I never thought of myself as much of a snacker, but the cold reality is that I do consume quite a lot in the evenings - popcorn, glass or two of wine, cheese and crackers... - and getting a hard shut-off point for eating really ingrained would be enormously helpful.
I'm kind of curious why you think the IF approach for this would be easier than just not snacking.
IF for me would be difficult every day, as I really prefer to eat after I run and I run first thing in the morning, so that means breakfast by 6:30 or 7 at the latest (since I have to go to work after that). 8 hours after that would be 3, and obviously I can't have dinner that early. It is extremely rare that I get off work before 7, so I eat dinner somewhat late (commute home, cooking). But I avoid snacking in the evenings since that's also a good way for me to eat habitually rather than due to real hunger, and I feel more satisfied with 3 reasonable-sized meals than meals plus snacks.
This approach for me means I don't eat after my planned dinner (if I have dessert it's immediately after dinner), but it's not IFing.
Not saying I don't think IFing is a good approach for some people, as I certainly do. It might well be great for you. But it's not the only approach that addresses thinking about/wanting to eat all the time or at night or whatever it is. It seems like any kind of planned schedule would do that.
I think what attracts people is that it's a one rule diet. This one rule can replace several making dieting simpler and mores traightforward. It's not for me because the thought of hitting my protein in two meals feels more daunting than attractive, and I also dislike the rigidity of having to limit my food variety. The variety point applies more to OMAD, but still applies if I chose to have two meals. I like the option of having 3-5 meals because I really enjoy different foods and sometimes I want to have them all in one day. If I can fit them all in, why would I not? I don't always have several small meals, but I like that the option is there. No clock watching is another plus. If I'm hungry in the morning I like being able to eat in the morning. I value flexibility above all else, but some people value rigid structure.
Actually it's a 2-rule diet for me , but the simplicity is indeed what I love about it.
Rule # 1: No eating outside the 11 a.m. to 7 p.m. window. Water or black coffee only.
Rule # 2: The MFP calorie quota is sacrosanct, my North Star. I hardly ever go over the number, and rarely am under by more than 20.
I take Rule 2 more seriously than Rule 1. Rule 2 is the cornerstone of my diet.
With no other rules or guidelines, that delivers weight loss for me within 5 % of what MFP says it should be. Very happy with that. And I figure I can scale it up when I get to maintenance - a few hundred more cals, same basic plan. It's rigid, but at the same time, unfussy.
My rule when I was losing was your rule #2 plus my rule #1 (3 meals, no snacks). Like you, I took rule #2 the most seriously, but mostly did both. I lost faster than MFP predicted throughout my weight loss, and pretty much every week until I was quite close to goal (and well within the normal weight numbers). I was never hungry.
All of this while eating 3 meals in a manner that would not fit an IF pattern at all. So it's calories. IF for some can be a good way to stick to cals, but for others different patterns work better.4 -
amusedmonkey wrote: »There's a lot of disdain or at least gentle dismissal for IF in this thread, so allow me to present an alternative viewpoint, as a person who has been doing 16:8 for five months, after trying various other diet efforts over the years that weren't nearly as effective (i.e. they "failed", whereas this effort has been extremely successful and is still going as strong today as the day I started it).
Yes, IF is not "magic". It's just another Way Of Eating. There are many of those.
Yes, you still need a calorie quota. I've been using the MFP-supplied calorie quota and pairing that with an IF structure. There are people who say you can just eat what you want on IF, but that doesn't make sense. Obviously, you will lose weight in accordance with your calorie deficit, no matter how and when you choose to eat.
Yes, the impact on insulin, diabetes, etc, can be debated, and some of the rampant online discussion about that stuff seems to have more of a "pop science" hype flavor than real medical value.
So ... then why IF?
1. First and foremost...
That you so much for this! I had planned to try this way of eating several months ago, but life got in the way (lots of travel to visit my father who was very ill). Am ready to try again and your explanation of the process has helped cement it for me. I never thought of myself as much of a snacker, but the cold reality is that I do consume quite a lot in the evenings - popcorn, glass or two of wine, cheese and crackers... - and getting a hard shut-off point for eating really ingrained would be enormously helpful.
I'm kind of curious why you think the IF approach for this would be easier than just not snacking.
IF for me would be difficult every day, as I really prefer to eat after I run and I run first thing in the morning, so that means breakfast by 6:30 or 7 at the latest (since I have to go to work after that). 8 hours after that would be 3, and obviously I can't have dinner that early. It is extremely rare that I get off work before 7, so I eat dinner somewhat late (commute home, cooking). But I avoid snacking in the evenings since that's also a good way for me to eat habitually rather than due to real hunger, and I feel more satisfied with 3 reasonable-sized meals than meals plus snacks.
This approach for me means I don't eat after my planned dinner (if I have dessert it's immediately after dinner), but it's not IFing.
Not saying I don't think IFing is a good approach for some people, as I certainly do. It might well be great for you. But it's not the only approach that addresses thinking about/wanting to eat all the time or at night or whatever it is. It seems like any kind of planned schedule would do that.
I think what attracts people is that it's a one rule diet. This one rule can replace several making dieting simpler and mores traightforward. It's not for me because the thought of hitting my protein in two meals feels more daunting than attractive, and I also dislike the rigidity of having to limit my food variety. The variety point applies more to OMAD, but still applies if I chose to have two meals. I like the option of having 3-5 meals because I really enjoy different foods and sometimes I want to have them all in one day. If I can fit them all in, why would I not? I don't always have several small meals, but I like that the option is there. No clock watching is another plus. If I'm hungry in the morning I like being able to eat in the morning. I value flexibility above all else, but some people value rigid structure.
Actually it's a 2-rule diet for me , but the simplicity is indeed what I love about it.
Rule # 1: No eating outside the 11 a.m. to 7 p.m. window. Water or black coffee only.
Rule # 2: The MFP calorie quota is sacrosanct, my North Star. I hardly ever go over the number, and rarely am under by more than 20.
I take Rule 2 more seriously than Rule 1. Rule 2 is the cornerstone of my diet.
With no other rules or guidelines, that delivers weight loss for me within 5 % of what MFP says it should be. Very happy with that. And I figure I can scale it up when I get to maintenance - a few hundred more cals, same basic plan. It's rigid, but at the same time, unfussy.
I lose 11 to 13 percent faster than I should which is easily explained by my tendency to log higher than I probably always need. My calorie goal though is a fairly soft target. The days I am within 50 calories are rare.
I tried eating to goal one week. It was an extremely annoying experiment. I hate trying to fill remnant calories. It was inorganic and I would not find it sustainable. My hunger doesn't work like that and more importantly my life is too messy for that level of precision. I don't really need it though because it all shakes out for me and I lose on schedule.
No real point here. If you found your easiest path forward for now that is what matters. I doubt any of us still losing know exactly how we will tackle maintenance. Like you I have some ideas but it will probably involve some trial and error.6 -
No real point here. If you found your easiest path forward for now that is what matters. I doubt any of us still losing know exactly how we will tackle maintenance. Like you I have some ideas but it will probably involve some trial and error.
I think about that a lot. I've lost tonnage before but gained it back. Maintenance is a whole different challenge and whereas I've succeeded at weight loss several times, I've never succeeded at maintenance. Hoping the structure of IF might give me the tool I need this time around - that getting used to long periods of not eating and also having an eating schedule with a window for food will break my association of "minor hunger pang" with "MUST EAT NOW". But yeah, it's going to be a work in progress for certain.
The one thing I'm pretty sure about is that "just eat a little more than during the diet, but not that much more, and be reasonable and eat healthy" will not work for me in maintenance, because it's never worked before. I need a system. I agree 100 % it'll be trial and error.5 -
No real point here. If you found your easiest path forward for now that is what matters. I doubt any of us still losing know exactly how we will tackle maintenance. Like you I have some ideas but it will probably involve some trial and error.
I think about that a lot. I've lost tonnage before but gained it back. Maintenance is a whole different challenge and whereas I've succeeded at weight loss several times, I've never succeeded at maintenance. Hoping the structure of IF might give me the tool I need this time around - that getting used to long periods of not eating and also having an eating schedule with a window for food will break my association of "minor hunger pang" with "MUST EAT NOW". But yeah, it's going to be a work in progress for certain.
The one thing I'm pretty sure about is that "just eat a little more than during the diet, but not that much more, and be reasonable and eat healthy" will not work for me in maintenance, because it's never worked before. I need a system. I agree 100 % it'll be trial and error.
This is why I say the primary goal is not to lose weight. It is to lose the habits and mindset of the person who gained it. I have made progress with this goal but I am not there yet. I have recently learned that I am no longer comfortable executing a planned sedentary day so I am obviously doing something right.
Maybe the restricted window is the only layer you were missing. I had quite a bit of weight to lose so it stands to reason I ultimately have a lot of changing to do.5 -
I started cutting my carbs (due to a carb sensitivity).
When I cut these foods for some reason lost my appetite upon waking... Don't know why, it just happened.
I kept seeing all this stuff on IF, saw the word fasting (thought it was fasting, like biblical text) and thought "Hell no." Didn't realize I was already doing IF.
Personally, I don't feel there's any real benefit to it for me. It's like others have stated... It's skipping breakfast...I honestly don't understand the hype!
I don't IF on purpose, I eat when hungry (listen to my body's hunger signals). If I do get hungry upon waking or shortly after, I eat!
I would never starve myself or go hungry no matter what the supposed benefit could be. I don't get that one!
5 -
Twice I went through periods of unexplained weight loss where I lost 20 lbs for no apparent reason. I finally figured out I had been doing an IF diet without realizing it. Due to my work and training schedule I typically didn't eat my last meal until 9:30 or 10:00 pm. But during those periods of weight loss I was not training and was eating much earlier and I typically skip breakfast anyway. Now I have found that if I stick to an 8 hour window I do ok, even better if I keep my calories around 1850 per day. I suspect if you have always eaten within an 8 hour window and typically have your last meal before 5:00 pm, then you won't see additional results but you are probably getting results compared to someone who eats late at night.5
-
thelandkraken wrote: »Pretty much what the title says. I’ve seen all these posts about how 16:8 changed people’s lives, and I want to understand. Is it really so normal to be eating more than 8 hours a day anyway? I feel really stupid but I don’t understand how it’s different from just a normal day.
@thelandkraken for some people IF lets glucose levels stabilize helping some types of appetite controlling hormones get into better control of our eating.15 -
GaleHawkins wrote: »thelandkraken wrote: »Pretty much what the title says. I’ve seen all these posts about how 16:8 changed people’s lives, and I want to understand. Is it really so normal to be eating more than 8 hours a day anyway? I feel really stupid but I don’t understand how it’s different from just a normal day.
@thelandkraken for some people IF lets glucose levels stabilize helping some types of appetite controlling hormones get into better control of our eating.
If the bolded were accurate, why are many diabetics directed by their doctors to eat smaller meals more frequently to stabilize blood sugar and prevent spikes and drops?17 -
Emmapatterson1729 wrote: »I started cutting my carbs (due to a carb sensitivity).
When I cut these foods for some reason lost my appetite upon waking... Don't know why, it just happened.
I kept seeing all this stuff on IF, saw the word fasting (thought it was fasting, like biblical text) and thought "Hell no." Didn't realize I was already doing IF.
Personally, I don't feel there's any real benefit to it for me. It's like others have stated... It's skipping breakfast...I honestly don't understand the hype!
I don't IF on purpose, I eat when hungry (listen to my body's hunger signals). If I do get hungry upon waking or shortly after, I eat!
I would never starve myself or go hungry no matter what the supposed benefit could be. I don't get that one!
For me it is more than just skipping breakfast. It is an aid in helping me control my eating habits. I have always had the problem of once I ate breakfast I was hungry for the rest of the day and always looking for my next bite of food. IF, TRE, skipping breakfast(whatever anyone wants to call it) has been a way for me to get in control.
I also don't starve myself or go hungry. I try to keep my eating time between 11am and 7pm. However if I am hungry at 10:30am I will go ahead and eat and then try to get back on schedule. Just as if I couldn't eat dinner until 7:30pm I would not skip that meal and go to bed starving. I think people have to use common sense no matter what their WOE is.
I have never claimed that IF,TRE or skipping breakfast holds any miracle powers. It is nothing more that a way that I have found works for me. I don't claim that it will cure anything not that it will work for everyone. I just know that it has been a useful tool for me.
I know that some people find success with eating several small meals a day. I have tried that and found that it left me thinking about food constantly. It just didn't work for me. Several other WOE also failed. I finally feel as if I have put together a plan that will work for me not only while losing weight but also to help control my weight afterwards.
2 -
thelandkraken wrote: »Pretty much what the title says. I’ve seen all these posts about how 16:8 changed people’s lives, and I want to understand. Is it really so normal to be eating more than 8 hours a day anyway? I feel really stupid but I don’t understand how it’s different from just a normal day.
I do it for the autophagy. IF is my body’s reward for keeping me alive.20 -
In my opinion, IF and skipping meals are not the same, even if they look the same. IF is done deliberately for a certain goal, like calorie control. Skipping meals just happens. Just like when someone ends up eating fewer calories one day because they're busy without the intent of dieting, it's not dieting. The act of dieting is deliberate and has a purpose.7
-
IF and skipping breakfast are not the same thing.9
-
Well, it just comes down to, what works for one doesn’t work for another. It’s a way of life that works for my lifestyle. It’s not a diet or a fad imo it’s just what I like. Just as CICO works for some and others can’t manage it. I say test out what works for you and go with it 😏13
-
Emmapatterson1729 wrote: »I started cutting my carbs (due to a carb sensitivity).
When I cut these foods for some reason lost my appetite upon waking... Don't know why, it just happened.
I kept seeing all this stuff on IF, saw the word fasting (thought it was fasting, like biblical text) and thought "Hell no." Didn't realize I was already doing IF.
Personally, I don't feel there's any real benefit to it for me. It's like others have stated... It's skipping breakfast...I honestly don't understand the hype!
I don't IF on purpose, I eat when hungry (listen to my body's hunger signals). If I do get hungry upon waking or shortly after, I eat!
I would never starve myself or go hungry no matter what the supposed benefit could be. I don't get that one!
For me it is more than just skipping breakfast. It is an aid in helping me control my eating habits. I have always had the problem of once I ate breakfast I was hungry for the rest of the day and always looking for my next bite of food. IF, TRE, skipping breakfast(whatever anyone wants to call it) has been a way for me to get in control.
I think this is common. I only object when people think it's everyone. I go without eating about 6 hours after breakfast and it's no big thing. I often go without eating 8 or 9 hours after lunch, and it's no big thing.I also don't starve myself or go hungry. I try to keep my eating time between 11am and 7pm.
For me this would mean eating only at work, which would not work for me, I prefer eating at home. On Monday through Thursday it would be way easier to skip lunch than try to fit a window (on Fridays we have work lunch, so I usually skip breakfast and just don't run in the morning).I have never claimed that IF,TRE or skipping breakfast holds any miracle powers. It is nothing more that a way that I have found works for me. I don't claim that it will cure anything not that it will work for everyone. I just know that it has been a useful tool for me.
And no one objects to this.4 -
Well, it just comes down to, what works for one doesn’t work for another. It’s a way of life that works for my lifestyle. It’s not a diet or a fad imo it’s just what I like. Just as CICO works for some and others can’t manage it. I say test out what works for you and go with it 😏
CICO is not a way of eating. If you lose doing IF, it's because of CICO.16 -
I suspect if you have always eaten within an 8 hour window and typically have your last meal before 5:00 pm, then you won't see additional results but you are probably getting results compared to someone who eats late at night.
I doubt this - but even if it is so ,why would that matter??
I dont need to get results compared to anyone else.
I got the results I wanted eating the calorie level I was given and eating at all sorts of times of day and almost always eating breakfast and very rarely eating dinner before 7 pm and usually something later than that as well.
Even if theoretically I could increase my loss rate by 0.01 lb per week or something by IF why would I want to do that when eating that way is so impractical and undesirable for me and I get good results by eating the way I want?8 -
Well, it just comes down to, what works for one doesn’t work for another. It’s a way of life that works for my lifestyle. It’s not a diet or a fad imo it’s just what I like. Just as CICO works for some and others can’t manage it. I say test out what works for you and go with it 😏
CICO works for everyone.
Whether you eat by IF or not.
IF (as far as weight loss goes) is only a means to acheiving CICO
11
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.3K Introduce Yourself
- 43.4K Getting Started
- 259.7K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 387 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.7K Motivation and Support
- 7.8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.4K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.2K MyFitnessPal Information
- 22 News and Announcements
- 900 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.2K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions